[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I'm not specifically complaining about memory usage. I was making comparison
of JAR file sizes not to compare memory usage (which is not related to JAR
file size, anyway), but to show that the difference between a 100 kb SAX2
parser and the 1.77 Mb of JARs in Xerces 2.0.1 is symptomatic of a project
that seriously cross functional boundaries and tries to do it all in one
single place.
I'm not complaining about bloated base classes, I'm complaining about
projects that force me to either use the full monty, or nothing (because of
dependencies between validation and parsing, for example). AFAIC, for
Xerces-J, I chose to use nothing.
Regards,
Nicolas Lehuen
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard@redhat.com]
>Envoye : mercredi 27 mars 2002 15:58
>A : Nicolas LEHUEN
>Cc : 'Matthew Gertner'; 'James Clark'; 'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'
>Objet : Re: [xml-dev] RELAX NG Marketing (was RE: [xml-dev] Do Names
>Matt er?)
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:42:02PM +0100, Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
>> As for the performance aspects of Java, I won't enter the
>debate, thank you
>> :).
>
> Reread my message. Was it about performances ? No it's about memory
>footprint. I read your message, complaing long and loudly
>about your base
>classes being bloated, and on the other hand only considered Java
>as the possible programming platform. Either you care about the memory
>(and cache ...) usage or not, make up your mind.
>
>Daniel
>
>--
>Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
>veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit
>http://xmlsoft.org/
>http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
>
|
